On Sun, Dec 4, 2011 at 23:34:37 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: > If the API has changed, as Nobuhiro states above, it would be > incorrect for the new -dev package to provide the old, wouldn't it?
No. It would only be incorrect if the plan was to keep libpng12-dev around as a real package. Since the source package name was not changed, I assume that's not the case. > Nor can the provides be temporary; it would have to last until all the > build-depends were changed, wouldn't it? > That's what temporary means. > Wouldn't it be better, instead, to leave both old and new -dev > packages in the archive until all 123 dependent packages are fixed? > There are 400 reverse dependencies of libpng. I don't think source changes to all of them (most just to switch a build-dependency) is a good plan. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
